32 replies to this topic

[7R1P0D]

I feel like for the combat effectiveness you gain from being able to mount more and larger weapons on mediums, you EASILY lose more combat effectiveness due to the speed you lose, and more importantly the size you GAIN compared to light

Now I generally play only lights or assaults, and the main reason for this is that these two weight classes are by far the most survivable

Assaults can obviously mount the most armor and heavy hitting weapons to survive hits and take out others quickly, but on the other hand lights are tiny and easily avoid being hit altogether and spread damage across their entire mech when they do get hit.
Mediums on the other hand easily get focused down on a single section.

I mean, a spider is less than half of the size of a centurion at more than half the weight, yet the centurion is about 75% the size of an atlas which weighs twice as much as it

I just don't see that many mediums when I play and I feel like it's because they come in at the size of a heavy without the armor and weaponry of one so they get focused down too quickly

[Maverick27]

I agree that the scale of the some of the mediums is a bit off but I also have to say that because of the hitbox arrangement on at least the three most recent meds, playing mediums is increasingly more viable. The Wolverine and Shadowhawk are both really solid mechs at this point.

[7R1P0D]

The wolverine is honestly so huge that I thought it was a fast heavy (don't know how much it weighs or how much armor it can mount but it usually takes a while to bring down)

the shadow hawk is pretty small for it's size and considering how much armor it can mount, so it's fine.

Really my main issues are the cicada, centurion and hunchback, since those are the only ones I've played

Maybe I've only ever used the large ones :/

[Roland]

It's been almost universally accepted by the playerbase that medium weight chassis are too large.

However, this opinion has been continually disregarded by PGI, not only to the extent that old mechs are not resized, but they continue to make NEW medium weight chassis which are equally huge.

Thus, the problem just keeps getting worse, and makes it less and less likely that they will ever fix it.

[Noesis]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

It's been almost universally accepted by the playerbase that medium weight chassis are too large.

However, this opinion has been continually disregarded by PGI, not only to the extent that old mechs are not resized, but they continue to make NEW medium weight chassis which are equally huge.

Thus, the problem just keeps getting worse, and makes it less and less likely that they will ever fix it.

This.

A reason I reluctantly play mediums atm. until tonnage restrictions arrive and/or some of their dependent weapon systems are improved or corrected. A large number of mediums simply under tarpaulin as a result.

Popular in lore as the workhorse and backbone from an economical perspective, the most reluctant platform played in MWO imho.

I'm hoping for better times and can predict that as mediums become more of a needed element potentially due to tonnage restrictions that the noise about this issue may only increase to remind PGI of something they identified with or recognised that could do with a revision but where reluctant to change due to economical (not game play) constraints to correct this. So it has been identified as a balance issue by PGI previously imo.

Tonnage restrictions may reduce the overall damage potential teams can provide however, so survivability may be improved marginally as a result. But these relative disparities in size will still be evident.

I also identify that with good piloting, tactics and awareness some Mediums can be utilised to good effect, but it does beg a question how much in terms of these limits the apparent lack of survivability has limited these things. E.g. if mediums where marginally more survivable, would they be a more effective counter to the existing sniper meta with flanking ambush style play or other more mobile tactical use?

Edited by Noesis, 08 January 2014 - 10:40 AM.

[zhajin]

yes they are, but PGI's ineptitude knows no bounds...

Edited by zhajin, 08 January 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[Mechteric]

yep, too big. Many of us have been saying it for some time now.

[Ahja]

Ah they know all this (see the many old old posts on it) and they will do nothing about Mech size. So move on.

[AC]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

It's been almost universally accepted by the playerbase that medium weight chassis are too large.

However, this opinion has been continually disregarded by PGI, not only to the extent that old mechs are not resized, but they continue to make NEW medium weight chassis which are equally huge.

Thus, the problem just keeps getting worse, and makes it less and less likely that they will ever fix it.

But PGI NEEDS to pony up and either start making medium mechs that are scaled correctly, or go back and resize the medium class as a whole. In my mind, this alone with do wonders to bring back my faith in PGI.

[Ngamok]

Here is my in my Wolverine standing behind a JagerMech and a Highlander. Notice the JM6 is slightly wider than me and the HGN is taller and bulkier looking. So 55 vs. 65 vs. 90

Edit: Larger view

http://cloud-2.steam...2BF7B7E9543083/

Edited by Ngamok, 08 January 2014 - 12:51 PM.

[Charons Little Helper]

Frankly - the mediums are about right if you take in the squared to cubed ratio. Mostly - it's that all lights are far too small in comparison to the rest.

And frankly - even the lights are too big in comparison to the buildings & cars.

Ever seen an Abrams tank? It weighs just over 67 tons (or just over 60 tonnes if you prefer). It's big - but it doesn't exactly dwarf trucks - despite weighing far more - it's mostly just denser due to armor. I realize that an equal weight mech would be much taller - since they aren't as long - but really it's kind of ridiculous how tall they are.

[FupDup]

Charons Little Helper, on 08 January 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Frankly - the mediums are about right if you take in the squared to cubed ratio. Mostly - it's that all lights are far too small in comparison to the rest.

The cube-square ratio, unfortunately, does not provide the output of a well-balanced and fun game. I don't care what physics say, the majority of mediums are too large for their armor and firepower potential (or lack thereof).

Lights are mostly fine, they have to be small or else they would be too easy to hit. And if they were too easy to hit, what advantage would they have at all? Don't say speed, because most of the purpose of going fast is to be hard to hit in the first place. A large target moving fast isn't that hard to hit unless it's going really really really fast.

Edited by FupDup, 08 January 2014 - 01:27 PM.

[Charons Little Helper]

FupDup, on 08 January 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

The cube-square ratio, unfortunately, does not provide the output of a well-balanced and fun game. I don't care what physics say, the majority of mediums are too large for their armor and firepower potential (or lack thereof).

Lights are mostly fine, they have to be small or else they would be too easy to hit. And if they were too easy to hit, what advantage would they have at all? Don't say speed, because most of the purpose of going fast is to be hard to hit in the first place. A large target moving fast isn't that hard to hit unless it's going really really really fast.

That's why I'd prefer they just shrink all mechs down to be proportional to lights (if not smaller) rather than scaling lights up. An Atlas at half the size still wouldn't be very hard to hit - due to how slow it is.

The help to any assault would be marginal.

Only the very fasted heavies would get much of a buff. (and the most popular current builds tend to be middling speed at best)

Mediums would get the biggest buff.

If everything was brought down to logical 'real world' size, lights would be shrunk somewhat as well. While they would be shrunk the least - their speed would mean they'd make the most of what shrinkage they got.

Though frankly - if they do change mech sizes (I'm doubtful) they should probably wait until after the eventual tonnage limits to take that into account for balance.

Edited by Charons Little Helper, 08 January 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 08 January 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

The cube-square ratio, unfortunately, does not provide the output of a well-balanced and fun game. I don't care what physics say, the majority of mediums are too large for their armor and firepower potential (or lack thereof).

Lights are mostly fine, they have to be small or else they would be too easy to hit. And if they were too easy to hit, what advantage would they have at all? Don't say speed, because most of the purpose of going fast is to be hard to hit in the first place. A large target moving fast isn't that hard to hit unless it's going really really really fast.

This is why PBs and Awesome-9Ms are not exactly optimal targets with a 380+XL engines.

Unfortunately, it's understandable to mistake the 80 ton assault mech for a medium. The Victor on the other hand.... has been on a diet since Day 1. If only the Awesome went on a diet...

[Myomes]

Medium mechs should be around 50-66% of the size of assault mechs.

[Monky]

Some mediums are too big. Mechs with better combinations of survivable hitboxes can afford to be somewhat larger, but most mediums don't fit that bill.

Other things killing mediums right now are the lack of effective SRM or LRM loadouts for them as these weapons systems just aren't hitting at full capacity and a large number of mediums are primarily missile users.

Speed issues have improved a little with some tweaks, but in general they are still too slow. Most mediums need to be in the 110 kph range at a minimum unless they're packing a single powerful weapon like a AC20 or 2x PPC that they need to sacrifice a fast engine in order to keep it working.

Edited by Monky, 08 January 2014 - 02:04 PM.

[Myomes]

Monky, on 08 January 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Some mediums are too big. Mechs with better combinations of survivable hitboxes can afford to be somewhat larger, but most mediums don't fit that bill.

Other things killing mediums right now are the lack of effective SRM or LRM loadouts for them as these weapons systems just aren't hitting at full capacity and a large number of mediums are primarily missile users.

Speed issues have improved a little with some tweaks, but in general they are still too slow. Most mediums need to be in the 110 kph range at a minimum unless they're packing a single powerful weapon like a AC20 or 2x PPC that they need to sacrifice a fast engine in order to keep it working.

is that really a problem with the mechs, though, or is it a problem with weapon balance? After all, you can put 2 LRM 15's on a treb, or even on a smaller mech.

[Lykaon]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

This.

A reason I reluctantly play mediums atm. until tonnage restrictions arrive and/or some of their dependent weapon systems are improved or corrected. A large number of mediums simply under tarpaulin as a result.

Popular in lore as the workhorse and backbone from an economical perspective, the most reluctant platform played in MWO imho.

I'm hoping for better times and can predict that as mediums become more of a needed element potentially due to tonnage restrictions that the noise about this issue may only increase to remind PGI of something they identified with or recognised that could do with a revision but where reluctant to change due to economical (not game play) constraints to correct this. So it has been identified as a balance issue by PGI previously imo.

Tonnage restrictions may reduce the overall damage potential teams can provide however, so survivability may be improved marginally as a result. But these relative disparities in size will still be evident.

I also identify that with good piloting, tactics and awareness some Mediums can be utilised to good effect, but it does beg a question how much in terms of these limits the apparent lack of survivability has limited these things. E.g. if mediums where marginally more survivable, would they be a more effective counter to the existing sniper meta with flanking ambush style play or other more mobile tactical use?

Tonnage restrictions will likely result in heavy and light mechs being more common and mediums becoming even more rare.

Here is my theory for the statement I just made.

Current plan is to average 60 tons per mech in a 12 player drop.

So would you take a centurion or a hunchback or Griffin over a Jagermech?

One Jenner allows for a team to have five 65 ton machines in addition to the Jenner.

Within the confines of our current AC dominant meta I would strongly suspect Jagermechs will be the recipient of the popularity award and not mediums.

[Noesis]

Lykaon, on 08 January 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

Tonnage restrictions will likely result in heavy and light mechs being more common and mediums becoming even more rare.

Here is my theory for the statement I just made.

Current plan is to average 60 tons per mech in a 12 player drop.

So would you take a centurion or a hunchback or Griffin over a Jagermech?

One Jenner allows for a team to have five 65 ton machines in addition to the Jenner.

Within the confines of our current AC dominant meta I would strongly suspect Jagermechs will be the recipient of the popularity award and not mediums.

Very true, and tonnage restrictions don't stop the possibility of using Assault snipers and Lights combination either in theory.

[AC]

Look at a Cicada and then look at a Wolverine.... There is only a 15 ton difference and in game it looks like the difference between a light mech and an assault mech